Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KimvdLinde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] KimvdLinde

Final (89/4/2) ending 02:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

KimvdLinde (talk · contribs) -- I am pleased to nominate Kim van der Linde for adminship. Kim has been editing for several months with more than 5000 contribution, is an active vandal fighter, makes good use of project pages such as WP:AIV, and communicates civily with other editors. Kim's recent article rewrite is now a good article candidate. Additionally Kim is multilingual, a big help when dealing with editors with limited english from an admin standpoint. — xaosflux Talk 02:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am happy to accept the nomination. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Nominator support. — xaosflux Talk 02:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support per xaosflux Talk. Definitely worthy of moving up in the ranks. Mostly Rainy 02:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Excellent editor, excellent nominator, excellent rewrite -- a sort of trifecta here! :) Xoloz 02:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support for this worthy candidate. Antandrus (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support JoshuaZ 02:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per Antandrus. G.He 02:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Good all-round editor. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, admins with specific expertise in subject areas are a bonus -- Samir धर्म 03:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support - looks good abakharev 03:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support.™ --Rory096 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Good work in several arenas. -- Kukini 04:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support with no doubts that Kimvd will make an excellent admin. Gwernol 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Good & Sold contributions. Deiaemeth 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support hardworking, sane, constructive, knowledgeable. Pete.Hurd 04:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support The little deranged voices in my head are agreeing with the other users above. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 05:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support very strong editor, I have no doubt he will use the mop well -- Deville (Talk) 05:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 05:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support--Jusjih 06:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support edits look fine to me.--MONGO 06:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Excellent candidate for adminship.--Firsfron 06:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. looks good.Voice-of-AllTalk 07:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support per nom and above. DarthVader 07:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support, looks good. --Tone 08:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Looked good after only reading opposition. She stays civil under fire. Impressive.--Chaser (T) 09:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Yessrao >> Good Candidate
  29. Support. I have seen a lot of good work on the troll-paths from this user. Rje 10:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support- I think Kim would use the admin powers as they're intended. Reyk YO! 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support --Terence Ong 12:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - looks pretty impressive to me. BTLizard 12:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. --Limegreen 12:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. FeedThePigeons 13:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support per nom. Axiomm 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Has been involved in some controversy, but has managed to stay cool under pressure. That's a good quality for an admin, since they'll be expected to be involved in controversy. --Elkman 12:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support managing your cool under pressure can be a very hard thing to do, so I congratulate you. Master of Puppets That's hot. 13:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  38. Rfa cliché #1. RadioKirk talk to me 13:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. --ForestH2
  41. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 15:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support, not bad for someone who wastes time fighting vandals (see user:ShootJar/Proposal for more on why vandal fighting isn't needed). ShortJason 15:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support combination of expertise and tact, committed to high standards, values contributions of others, and strong committment to WP ethosGleng 16:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support, would make good use of the mop. Highly unlikely to abuse admin powers. Royboycrashfan 16:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Has a refreshingly different, collaborative and self-effacing approach. Also see my reply to Ted. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Kusma (討論) 21:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support - Getting another evolution-related article up to featured standards was my proposal a few months back; I'm glad someone's actually doing it! --Cyde↔Weys 21:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support--blue520 23:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support, level headed, civil, and professional. Kuru talk 23:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  50. Merovingian {T C @} 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support, strong technical writer, good understanding of NPOV and has shown an excellent touch in guiding new users in policy. Will be an excellent admin. Rockpocket (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Agree with above statement, will be an excellent admin. Garion96 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. from left-wing Darwinek ;). - Darwinek 11:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support - Good contributor. Afonso Silva 11:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  55. Bandwagon support. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  56. Strong Support - she's a great asset to the project. Guettarda 13:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. —Ruud 13:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support per above. -- SCZenz 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  59. Wholehearted support. Tons of good edits, and a history of constructive comments. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support to death Can't beelive she wasn't already admin!!—Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Jay(Reply) 17:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support Extremely good contributor. With 5,000 + edits she deserves to be an admin.Jordy 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. Nothing but good contributions fromthis editor - the mop is definetely in order. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 18:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support Great contributor who I've observed working well with some very difficult users. Danielross40 19:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support per above -- excellent candidate. Jkelly 22:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support, would make a great addition. Sarge Baldy 23:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  67. Strong Support. I've seen this user around a lot, the user meets my specs, and I would trust the user with admin tools. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 02:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  69. Jaranda wat's sup 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support. Looks alright. None of the comments in the oppose votes swayed me. Nephron  T|C 04:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support (I was convinced after reading the oppose votes!) Captainj 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  72. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support Dr Zak 18:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support I wholeheartedly support this Request for Adminship. No questions asked. AvB ÷ talk 20:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support Wouldn't abuse tools and oppose votes indicate she's doing something right already. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support I would have kicked myself if I had missed this RFA. Joelito (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support. I know Natural selection was a tough one to deal with, everything I've seen of Kim has been positive.--ragesoss 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support – Gurch 10:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  79. Strong support, an excellent editor, and we need more support votes to counter such comments as by Lou franklin below. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support —Jnk[talk] 02:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  81. Belated Support SoLando (Talk) 14:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support Lapinmies 18:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  83. support You seem to be getting attacked on the board by vandals and trolls. That's the best recommendation I know of :-). --Bachrach44 18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support--digital_me(t/c) 18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support: good editor. Jonathunder 20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support Joe I 22:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support, yes, why not. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support -- Like all other editors she has a POV, but as a skilled editor she adheres to NPOV. She has exercised restraint in disputes, and I trust her to exercise appropriate restraint with admin tools. Cleduc 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support, per above. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose. Unfortunately, Kim tends to use Wikipedia to push her POV. She was unable to work with another editor and started an RfA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Marcosantezana) against an editor that is basically a POV war. Unfortunately for Marcos, he doesn't follow the rules. Kim uses the rules as a bludgeon. She tries different tactics to get her POV across, such as creating a disambiguation page to push her views (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=51839832). I'm sure she is well-meaning, but I fear her definition of consensus is when editors agree with her (note this comment after several editors tried to work on a decent introduction to Natural selection: [1]. What she is saying is that she is ready to tear apart the article, Natural selection over a dispute with me). What she was trying to do was to recast everyone who didn't agree with her as pushing "Darwinian Natural Selection" and her view as "Modern Natural Selection." She did the same thing to Quantitative genetics, and I eventually stopped editing articles that she owns. Another example of unilateral action: [2]. Basically, I believe that Kim will use the admin tools to push her version of The Truth. As I have said on another admin candidate, there is nothing more horifying than an admin who knows The Truth.Ted 06:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    I understand where TedE's is coming from here (while disagreeing on many points, YMMV, see answer to question 3 for more info on this episode). To address just the one clearest point of disagreement, I think it's really a mischaracterization of the Marcosantezana RFAr to depict it as either a POV war, or as something initiated by Kim alone. In the weeks leading up to the RFAr I had several discussions with at least two other editors who were considering filing an RFAr over Marcosantezana's behaviour on that article. I don't think the RFAr was in anyway inappropriate, and I think it's worth noting the unanimous votes by the arbcomm members against Marcosantezana in the case in question. Pete.Hurd 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with Pete, and would add that the disagreements over the definition of natural selection were not solely or primarily driven by Kim; it was something a whole bunch of editors were involved in. In fact, Kim contributed significantly to the eventual resolution of the dispute, which is what your cited disambiguation page shows. I would grant all editors, admin or not, the privilege of being bold. Kim has not to my knowledge engaged in edit-warring with Marcos (in contrast with other editors and admins), but has instead been diligent to seek avenues for conflict resolution, and left space for the benefit of a doubt. Marcos on his part has singled out Kim and blamed various actions taken against him on her, when she was not in fact involved or on occasions informed, to my knowledge. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    I encourage any editors who are concerned about the arbcomm case to read the evidence to form their own view. If it does anything it shows what a good candidate Kim is. Please note that I presented most of the evidence in this case having never engaged in a content dispute with Marcos. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Ted is 100% correct. Wikipedia needs moderate admins. But this user proudly claims "I am a left wing lesbian" [3]. Additionally, this user is not fluent in English [4][5] and might be better suited to be an admin on the Dutch site. Lou franklin 02:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I see no reason to require that all editors either be straight, or stay closeted, to become administrators. I may be wrong, but my guess would be that of Kim's circa 6000 edits, this is the only to discuss her putative orientation, and this diff totally fails to demonstrate any POV pushing. I also note that Arbcomm has indefinately banned User:Lou franklin from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, the article whose talk page this diff comes from, and is on personal attack parole. Pete.Hurd 03:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it is ironic that I used it there because I wanted to illustrate that I, as a lesbian, was agreeing that the Societal attitudes towards homosexuality article was at places POV towards being to positive about those societal attitudes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Opposing a candidate on the basis of sexual and political orientation. Brilliant. Luckily this kind of discrimination is illegal in most countries. --Cyde↔Weys 03:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Good grief. I have worked with Kim extensively recently and I think she has been a model of objective, considered, balanced judgement. Anything she lacks in awareness of subtleties of grammar she more than makes up for in the clarity of her logic - this is a much rarer virtue in WP, and should be the more prized because of itGleng 12:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC).
      • Wikipedia needs editors who follow WP:NPOV; their real-life political views don't matter at all. -- SCZenz 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Note to closing 'crat, this user has been banned indef from wikipedia, see here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose Ted is right. Kim will use the admin tools to push her version of The Truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernando Cortez (talk • contribs)
  2. Oppose Her expertise in certain areas is very good (biology). However, I feel she would use the tools to push her own agenda at times, as discribed by other voters. WIkiman 18:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    Note to closing 'crat, this is User:WIkiman's first edit under this account. — xaosflux Talk 18:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Teds comment worries me. -- Shizane talkcontribs 20:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose—a position I feel forced into by the answer to my question 6, or rather by the fact that my questions weren't answered, but evaded. I feel an admin should be able to deal with such questions directly, simply and honestly in a convincing way. The response does not convince me and I fear bodes trouble for the future. Her intelligence and knowledge is an asset to Wikipedia but can be an obstacle when dealing with those who have not arrived at the same understanding. In the case cited it is not unreasonable to suggest that "Natural Selection" should be an article about Darwin, because that is, in fact, what most people would expect to find. There are other solutions, e.g. the modern theories could go in an article called "Modern theories of natural selection". There seems to have been an insistence, however, that one way was the right way. This does lend some credence to Ted's objections as above. I would like to state that I have no objection to someone being a "left wing lesbian" or any other personal affiliation provided it does not intrude on NPOV editing—an honest declaration, as in this case, is actually a safeguard. Tyrenius 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    The answers I would give on your questions as written down are: No, not helpfull, and No, it is not an appropriate attitude for an admin. And I appologize for not directly answering those questions. And also thanks for confirming that my solution to the content dispute by splitting the article was a correct proposal. I have no problem with that solution at all, nor did I have it at that time. Please see User:KimvdLinde/Modern_usage_of_natural_selection, as I indeed have started that solution pretty much after the discussion with TedE, and I am still willing to pursue that solution. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for your second reply, which is clear. However, I am rather taken aback that you think I am confirming your solution to split the article, as that was not something I said. You said that the article "Natural Selection" should be about modern theories, and the information about Darwin should be in an article titled "Darwinian natural selection". I said "it is not unreasonable to suggest that "Natural Selection" should be an article about Darwin." I didn't say I thought it was right to divide the subject in this way, and, in fact, I don't think it should be done. To me it seems obvious that an article titled "Natural selection" should contain all facets of that subject, historic and contemporary, and there should only be other articles split off if the main article became too long. Tyrenius 08:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    I would prefer to keep the article together as well; we are at the same page with that. If I gave the impression that you endorsed the splitting of the article, my appologies. What I intended to say that I was happy with your assesment that splitting the article COULD potentially be a proper alternative solution to resolve his longstanding content dispute (I cite: There are other solutions, e.g. the modern theories could go in an article called "Modern theories of natural selection".). I am not stuck to one solution, to the contrary, I just would like to find an acceptable solution for this long-standing and ongoing content dispute. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, that's a misunderstanding. I don't know whether splitting it could be a proper alternative solution or not, but I suspect not. I was just pointing out there are other solutions as to titling and content if it is split. Anyway, I hope the matter reaches a good resolution for all involved. Tyrenius 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for clearning this up. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. neutral: Ombudsman 06:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Any particular reason why? --Rory096 06:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. robchurch | talk 22:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutral per Ombudsman and Robchurch, and minor POV-related concerns – Gurch 10:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to support.

Comments

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 06:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user KimvdLinde (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 117 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 26, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 30, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 73.3% Minor edits: 95.77%
Article edit summary use (last 426 edits) : Major article edits: 97.71% Minor article edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 78.28 (for last 500 edit(s))
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 3.22% (161)
Unique pages edited: 1222 | Average edits per page: 4.09 | Edits on top: 9.36%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 22.12% (1106 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 26.06% (1303 edit(s))
Marked reverts: 16.66% (833 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 35.16% (1758 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 43.06% (2153) | Article talk: 22% (1100)
User: 6.7% (335) | User talk: 14.56% (728)
Wikipedia: 9.06% (453) | Wikipedia talk: 3.14% (157)
Image: 0.36% (18)
Template: 0.62% (31)
Category: 0.1% (5)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.4% (20)
  • KimvdLinde's edit summary usage from Mathbot's tool.
    97% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
  • Contribution breakdown
Username KimvdLinde
Total edits:5039
Distinct pages edited 1290
Average edits/page 3.906
First edit 2006-01-30 02:25:22
(main) 2161
Talk 1109
User 358
User talk 729
Image 18
Image talk 2
Template 31
Template talk 10
Category 5
Wikipedia 452
Wikipedia talk 157
Portal talk 7
  • Kim was planing on self-nominating eventually, as I found out when I went to nominate (thus the prior edits to this page). — xaosflux Talk 02:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I will probably be active at different places. I do a decent share of vandalism fighting and I encounter frequently vandalism that has not been cleaned up after days, probably because not many editors have those pages on their watchlist. I expect to frequent WP:AN/3RR and WP:AIV as they have at odd times significant backlogs, and I expect to slowly work my way to more complex cases. Furthermore, things like the deletions of obvious copyright violations, speedy deletions requested moves and closing AfD's at times, moving requested pages when appropriate, etc. -- Kim van der Linde at venus
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am personally pleased with my contributions to the Natural selection page, which IMHO, was a mess before. Currently, I try to update the many pages related to the Parrots (order Psittaciformes). The phylogeny in that group has been subject to many changes, which poses its own challenges as the phylogeny has not been resolved fully. By nature of the Tree of life project, this requires updating many many seperate pages. In that context, one of the articles on the Australian Ringneck has been labelled as a good article. I admit, I do not work on a single article to bring it to featured article status, but work on many articles because I think that it is in the first place crucial that the information is correct and updating several hundered of pages related to a whole group of organisms is not going to be recognized quickly in the form of a featuered article, but bringing such a section up to date is essential for the quality of Wikipedia. This has also inflates my edit count, so consider it somewhat lower than it shows. -- Kim van der Linde at venus
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: In general, I am not quickly stressed, although I have to admit that I got stressed when I saw this post, especially after s/he had posted this before. The exact motivation why this stressed me out can be found here. In this particular instance, I just slept a night over it, and the next morning, it was pretty much gone. I personally do think that it is not worth to get frustrated with other editors. Everybody does her/his best, and if not, refering to policies and guidelines works pretty well in many cases. And extreme cases, there is the dispute resolution process. -- Kim van der Linde at venus
Comment Why don't you mention your edit war with Marcos? Have you learned anything from that? I think you are downplaying your stress level -- you seem to threaten to stop editing quite a bit. Ted 07:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I should have mentioned the situation with Marcosantezana and the arbitration case, however, it has not caused me significant stress. I would like to note that I agree in a large part with Marcosantezana on what the content of the Natural selection article should be. As to the resignment statement, I have learned not to engage in every possible (content) conflict but to choose those that are worth putting energy in. I am here in my own free time to contribute to an encyclopedia, and there are more than enough articles for me to work on. So, I sometimes just do not see the need for endless content discussions when I feel that the large majority of the editors disagrees with me on that content as was the case with the Natural selection article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
4. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
A: see my contribution at the talk page of the proposal, as I think that others can easier add to that when all ideas about proposal are concentrated at a single place. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
5. I recentally wacthed your responese to some user's "expirement with vandalism." If you had administrative rights at that time, whould you have blocked him/her? And if so, at what point? 59.20.72.35 18:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
A: First of all, I do a lot of vandalism fighting, so could you point me to the case you refering to so that I can give a specific answer. The general answer would be that I would block those cases that I sent to the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. In general I am at times surprised that other admins already block when I would try another warning. But without a more specific case, it will be difficult to say anything specific. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: I'm referring to the case involving user 216.164.203.90, 59.20.72.35 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The first series of events took place in the early morning of May 13 [7]. By the time that I posted the {{subst:test4}} at his talk page, he was already at 8RR, reverted by 5 different editors. We got into a 'discussion' but he did not get the picture that inserting nonsense is not appreciated at Wikipedia and kept insisted that his contribution was correct. After that, I reported him to WP:AIV. The reason that I discussed with him after the warning was because I realised that I should have given him a {{subst:test3}} first. By the time he got blocked, he was at 12RR at Gray Wolf, and had posted this at my talk page including making fun of typo's (which happens when I am typing fast but also because I am dyslectic, I just do not see them). I would have blocked him somewhat earlier, probably at 10RR; requesting an admin’s intervention takes some time.
The next afternoon, when still blocked, he posts this at his talk page. *Shrug*. I responded with this and would have left it at that. He got himself blocked on the 15th for personal attacks; while at 4RR at the same page, I was not involved that day.
May 17th, he posts this. If true, and because he had attacked me primarily, I lost my calm. In posted it at the WP:AN, now here at archive. I would not have blocked him that day for anything, because I was angry so this was for another admin to handle.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


6 Optional Question from Tyrenius
In Natural Selection:talk this exchange occurred:
I guess I'm not ready to tear apart this article over one sentence and a couple of words. Ted 18:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am ready to do that, precisly over the type of arguments you are putting forward. KimvdLinde 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that Ted was trying to calm things down and put them in perspective, and instead of responding positively to this and trying to work with him, you replied in a confrontational way which would be likely to only escalate the problem. Do you think you replied well or do you think the tone of this reply was unhelpful? Do you think it shows an attitude that would be appropriate for an admin?
For the context, see the Natural Selection article at that time. In my opinion at that time, the article was pretty much unreadable, and described Darwinian Natural Selection, which is roughly equivalent with Evolution by means of Natural Selection. Nowadays, Natural Selection is much better defined, and I think an encyclopaedic article should be up to date, with a history section dealing with the older ideas. Therefore, I had proposed at that time to split the article along the Darwinian and the modern usage of Natural selection, because a month long and intense discussion, with several people involved, had not resulted in a decent solution. So I wrote:
  • I think we should rename this article to Darwinian natural selection. The focus is to much on his ideas, and not enough about the current understanding of that idea. We can than also make a separate article about the current usage of that term. KimvdLinde 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • To explain a bit more. I think the lead paragraph is getting worse, not better. And I think there are to many people who are to much focussed on Darwin this, Darwin that. I think we have to seriously think about NatSel, but I have the feeling that splitting the article in a Darwinian and a modern version might be needed. KimvdLinde 05:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
These remarks were about the whole article, but in the discussion that followed, the focus was primarily at the lead section. This discussion did not resolve either, and the focus remained at older definitions. In a response of TedE, I wrote this: Sorry, the current definition is evolution/adaptation by means of natural selection, which is not natural selection, but the result of prolonged natural selection., on which TedE’s responded (the complete version):
  • I disagree. Take out the last sentence of the second paragraph. Change "less adapted" to "least fit" and "adapted" to "most fit". It may be poor English, but it is a core definition of natural selection. I would love to take out the last sentence. However, I can read adapted in a non-evolutionary sense -- and it may actually be understood better by the general public than using fitness. I guess I'm not ready to tear apart this article over one sentence and a couple of words. Ted 18:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
My response, Well, I am ready to do that, precisely over the type of arguments you are putting forward, was a response to the continued insistence of keep the article focused on Darwin’s definition. The discussion had been limited to the lead section and some minor wording issues in that, but was essentially about the fundamental difference of opinion on the article, not just about one sentence and a couple of words because those words are defining the article as a whole.
Would I have done it differently now? Probably, the incident took place 3500+ edits ago. I would have responded with a longer explanation, why I think the article needed to be split, because it was not just those one sentence and a couple of words. As I wrote above in response to question 3, I have learned to pick my discussions, and one thing I know, is that I am avoiding all discussions with TedE, just because they are not going well between us. Our main difference, his focus on older literature against my focus on the current state of the topic based on the current literature is not going to work. The rewritten NatSel article, which I wrote together with Gleng, is already changed towards the more Darwinian evolution definition, and that is probably where it will slowly go to again. I am not going to resist that, I have given my arguments and if the community thinks the article should be on a different topic, so be it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.